The Polynesians' epic voyages of exploration and colonization across the Pacific are one of humanity's most impressive accomplishments (even if the local bird life wasn't likely to have enjoyed it). Having most probably started in Taiwan, the explorers reached and settled on islands across most of the Pacific, as far north as Hawaii and as far south as New Zealand. And recent evidence shows that they also stopped in South America, where they stayed long enough to pick up food crops that eventually wound up distributed across the Pacific as well.

By the time they reached South America, however, several large and sophisticated civilizations had already developed along the west coast of that continent. This is in sharp contrast to the uninhabited islands that the Polynesians were used to colonizing, which raises questions about whether any of the voyagers were likely to have stayed in the newly discovered land. Genetic surveys of native populations in Peru and elsewhere have indicated that, if any did stick around, they didn't make a significant contribution to the local gene pool.

But now, some researchers have found some Polynesian DNA in the remains of some Native Americans. Oddly, however, the remains are on the exact opposite side of the continent from where the Polynesians are likely to have landed. Even the researchers themselves are at a bit of a loss to explain it; after considering several possible causes, even the one they find most likely gets labelled as "fanciful."

Although the interpretation is bewildering, the data is pretty clear-cut. The authors focused on a tribe that originally lived in the south-east of Brazil called the Botocudo. This group was violent and independent, and didn't come under the control of the Portuguese colonial power. In 1808, the authorities essentially declared war against any group that fit this description. By the end of that century, the Botocudo had essentially ceased to exist as a distinctive ethnic group.

The remains of several Botocudo individuals, however, were preserved in museums, and the authors obtained DNA from over a dozen of them. That DNA was used to study parts of the mitochondrial genome, which is inherited exclusively through female lineages. Because it's relatively easy to obtain and sequence, mitochondrial DNA has been used for a variety of studies of human evolution, and there's a wealth of data available on the variations associated with different populations.

A dozen of these samples produced the sorts of sequences you'd typically see in Native American populations. But two others have a set of distinctive changes that, to date, have only been found in populations associated with Polynesian cultures.

So, how to explain this? The authors consider a number of possibilities. One is based on the fact that both Polynesians and Native Americans are originally derived from Asian populations. Thus, it's possible that the ancestors of both these people shared a variant that has either gone extinct on the Asian mainland, or has just escaped the reach of our current sequencing efforts. However, all indications are that some of the changes we associate with Polynesians appear to be recent, and likely occurred after the population was on Taiwan. So, the authors consider that prospect unlikely.

The next possibility they consider is that the DNA arrived with the Polynesian voyagers themselves, which might seem plausible except for the fact that there's an entire continent's worth of individuals in between who, to date, seem to have no hint of Polynesian DNA. Plus some forbidding geography. "There still would remain the need to explain how these migrants crossed the Andes and ended up in Minas Gerais, Brazil," the authors muse. "We feel that such a scenario is too unlikely to be seriously entertained."

So, what's left? The best of a bad bunch of explanations. Towards the end of the African slave trade, Britain's ban on slavery led it to interdict vessels along the west coast of Africa. That shifted some of the trade to elsewhere, including Madagascar. That island was also settled by Polynesians, and about 20 percent of its population appears to carry DNA variants consistent with the Brazilian find. Once brought to Brazil, there were a few decades in which these individuals could have been kidnapped by and assimilated into the Botocudo (possibly producing offspring) before the tribe was exterminated. The authors helpfully note that a kidnapping of this sort was the subject of an 1870 opera by a Brazilian composer.

The timing and number of coincidences needed are what cause the authors to term this "fanciful." Still, they consider this the best of a bad lot of explanations.

The paper's somewhat odd, in that the authors couch their introduction in terms of debates about the peopling of North America prior to the arrival of Europeans, all of which are somewhat aside from the point. Instead, they've stumbled across a real scientific mystery, one that is likely to be very challenging to sort out. And, like many other historical accidents, this one may perpetually defy easy explanations.

It's not inconceivable that a Polynesian explorer or offspring were traded across South America as slaves. Also, I wonder why the authors discount a more peacable cross-land trek for any putative Polynesians... their explorations didn't have to be purely maritime.

edit: to add, although its a difficult journey , it's certainly not impossible, and like the Vulcans say, whenever you eliminate the impossible, etc.

Traversing South America from West to East, or from East to West isn't nearly as difficult as the author suggests. Archeology has proven that many groups did so throughout the history of the contintent. For example, Cassite remains suggest thriving trade between the Andes and the Amazon Basin. After passing through the Andes it's essentially "smooth sailing" down the Amazon and on to the East Coast.

Woah, I didn't realize the Polynesians reached Madagascar. I know that was just a side point in the argument, but I looked it up and it turns out most people there are half Polynesian. I'm blown away by just how far they traveled.

The Mormon church has taught that Native Americans and Polynesians are descended from ancient seafaring Israelites.

According to the Book of Mormon, Israelite descendants of Noah traveled across (or underneath) the Atlantic to Central America in the three millennia before the birth of Jesus Christ. The Jaredites, the earliest of the groups, self-destructed in internal battles, and survivors of the other two groups, known as Lamanites and Nephites, after massive internecine warfare, migrated into North America, where Jesus appeared to them after his resurrection. They practiced Christianity until renewed warfare resulted in the annihilation of the Nephites. Remnants of the Lamanites scattered throughout the continent, becoming the American Indians encountered by European explorers and colonizers.

While the final theory is the most likely, I seriously doubt that they were "kidnapped" in the conventional modern sense of this term (although it served slaveowners' interests to describe the trend that way).

"Rescued" or "adopted" is probably more like it. African slaves were fleeing their masters to live among indigenous peoples since the beginning of their forced migration to the Americas.

Traversing South America from West to East, or from East to West isn't nearly as difficult as the author suggests. Archeology has proven that many groups did so throughout the history of the contintent. For example, Cassite remains suggest thriving trade between the Andes and the Amazon Basin. After passing through the Andes it's essentially "smooth sailing" down the Amazon and on to the East Coast.

The difficulty lies in doing so without leaving other DNA evidence in your wake.

Also, the hard part of that trek would really be to get up the Andes and back down the other side. It's really difficult terrain, and would have been pretty well settled at that time period.

Traversing South America from West to East, or from East to West isn't nearly as difficult as the author suggests. Archeology has proven that many groups did so throughout the history of the contintent. For example, Cassite remains suggest thriving trade between the Andes and the Amazon Basin. After passing through the Andes it's essentially "smooth sailing" down the Amazon and on to the East Coast.

The difficulty lies in doing so without leaving other DNA evidence in your wake.

Also, the hard part of that trek would really be to get up the Andes and back down the other side. It's really difficult terrain, and would have been pretty well settled at that time period.

I am not understanding why DNA evidence (i.e, babies) would necessarily be left behind. We aren't (probably) talking about a wave of migration, just a small, maybe one-time, group of travelers.

ANCIENT ALIENS! They came to our planet, flew people around and randomly built crude rock structures then left (Scientists & Crack Pots er um "ancient alien theorists" both call these sites megalithic to avoid feeling silly by saying "big rock"). This is clearly the only non-crazy interpretation of the facts.

Why is it so inconceivable that after sailing across the entire Pacific, they didn't just sail around Cape Horn? If the tribes on the Pacific Coast were hostile to settlers, it makes sense that they would follow the coast to try to find someplace friendlier to live.

"The next possibility they consider is that the DNA arrived with the Polynesian voyagers themselves, which might seem plausible except for the fact that there's an entire continent's worth of individuals in between who, to date, seem to have no hint of Polynesian DNA. Plus some forbidding geography. "There still would remain the need to explain how these migrants crossed the Andes and ended up in Minas Gerais, Brazil," the authors muse. "We feel that such a scenario is too unlikely to be seriously entertained."

The DNA crossed the Pacific in a few thousand years, and it's unlikely that further migration could have carried it across land? Why is this unlikely?

Traversing South America from West to East, or from East to West isn't nearly as difficult as the author suggests. Archeology has proven that many groups did so throughout the history of the contintent. For example, Cassite remains suggest thriving trade between the Andes and the Amazon Basin. After passing through the Andes it's essentially "smooth sailing" down the Amazon and on to the East Coast.

The difficulty lies in doing so without leaving other DNA evidence in your wake.

Sure, if you assume that human populations move slowly over the course of generations. If they gradually made their way from the west coast to the east coast, you'd expect to see some genetic legacy left behind as they had children and interbred with the locals.

It doesn't have to be a case of a population settling down in an area, and their children settling a few miles over, and their children a few miles beyond that, until generations later you're far from where you started. Sometimes people just get the itch to travel and explore, and you make the trip all at once. It would seem that Polynesian populations were particularly inclined towards that sort of exploration.

If a group of people is sufficiently motivated, there's not a whole lot keeping you from walking across a continent in a few months. The oceans make a much more formidable barrier to the movement of human populations, and if the vastness of the Pacific didn't stop the Polynesians, then some mountains and jungles probably wouldn't either.

Quote:

Also, the hard part of that trek would really be to get up the Andes and back down the other side. It's really difficult terrain, and would have been pretty well settled at that time period.

If anything it would seem that being "well settled" would make things easier, since there would probably be established routes and trails for trade to follow.

Oh the flip side you have to deal with potentially defensive populations which aren't happy to see outsiders, but I suspect most people are content to leave you be if you just appear to be "passing through".

As an indigenous people without the corruption of western civilization and the profit motive, they were incapable of true violence, only what was necessary to live in harmony with land and nature.

Their demonisation by western colonialists as a result of their refusal take up corrupt and unnatural western ways, is only to be expected, but one would hope that the time for continued demonisation has passed. We must now recognize that the Botocudo way of life is superior to western civilization and, indeed, a model for the world to follow.

The DNA crossed the Pacific in a few thousand years, and it's unlikely that further migration could have carried it across land? Why is this unlikely?

I think the mystery is that there is no genetic evidence for the Polynesians on the western side of South America. It's like a boat full of Polynesians landed on one side of South America and then immediately crossed the Andes and marched to the other side of the continent before stopping for a breather.

According to the Book of Mormon, Israelite descendants of Noah traveled across (or underneath) the Atlantic to Central America in the three millennia before the birth of Jesus Christ.

The first group (the Jaredites) left around the time of the Tower of Babel (between 4000-3000 BC), the second (people of Lehi) left Jerusalem around 600 BC, and a third group (people of Zarahemla) left shortly after Jerusalem was captured by Nebuchadnezzar and Zedekiah was appointed king.

As an indigenous people without the corruption of western civilization and the profit motive, they were incapable of true violence, only what was necessary to live in harmony with land and nature.

Their demonisation by western colonialists as a result of their refusal take up corrupt and unnatural western ways, is only to be expected, but one would hope that the time for continued demonisation has passed. We must now recognize that the Botocudo way of life is superior to western civilization and, indeed, a model for the world to follow.

I have to applaud your post for coming across as crazy in a sea of ancient aliens posts.

The DNA crossed the Pacific in a few thousand years, and it's unlikely that further migration could have carried it across land? Why is this unlikely?

I think the mystery is that there is no genetic evidence for the Polynesians on the western side of South America. It's like a boat full of Polynesians landed on one side of South America and then immediately crossed the Andes and marched to the other side of the continent before stopping for a breather.

I think's that's the point of confusion. Why assume it was that kind of gradual migration, rather than a quick jaunt across the Andes without leaving infants left, right, and center?

The DNA crossed the Pacific in a few thousand years, and it's unlikely that further migration could have carried it across land? Why is this unlikely?

I think the mystery is that there is no genetic evidence for the Polynesians on the western side of South America. It's like a boat full of Polynesians landed on one side of South America and then immediately crossed the Andes and marched to the other side of the continent before stopping for a breather.

I think's that's the point of confusion. Why assume it was that kind of gradual migration, rather than a quick jaunt across the Andes without leaving infants left, right, and center?

Because these guys were southeast Asian sailors. They would have had exactly 0 experience with navigating difficult mountain passes and probably no equipment. They would also have no maps and no common language with any natives they encountered. Also, my assumption is that they stayed away from the western coast for a reason, possibly hostile native civilizations or maybe even warfare at the time (the native tribes were at war quite frequently) and would not have been inclined to try to sneak through it.

That's why I thought it would be more likely that they just sailed around instead. The trip is difficult for sure, but they are going in the much easier direction and we know for sure that they were experienced open water sailors. Also, this doesn't look like it was a common thing. These genetic markers could literally be the result of a single lucky expedition that managed to avoid getting crushed by waves or blown against rocks and scuttled.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. "Humans (including scientists) are not near as smart as they think they are."

Science is good, but one must realize its limitations, just like so many are so quick to point out the limitations of various religions, we should be equally quick to point out the limitations of science.

The DNA crossed the Pacific in a few thousand years, and it's unlikely that further migration could have carried it across land? Why is this unlikely?

I think the mystery is that there is no genetic evidence for the Polynesians on the western side of South America. It's like a boat full of Polynesians landed on one side of South America and then immediately crossed the Andes and marched to the other side of the continent before stopping for a breather.

I think's that's the point of confusion. Why assume it was that kind of gradual migration, rather than a quick jaunt across the Andes without leaving infants left, right, and center?

Because these guys were southeast Asian sailors. They would have had exactly 0 experience with navigating difficult mountain passes and probably no equipment. They would also have no maps and no common language with any natives they encountered. Also, my assumption is that they stayed away from the western coast for a reason, possibly hostile native civilizations or maybe even warfare at the time (the native tribes were at war quite frequently) and would not have been inclined to try to sneak through it.

That's why I thought it would be more likely that they just sailed around instead. The trip is difficult for sure, but they are going in the much easier direction and we know for sure that they were experienced open water sailors. Also, this doesn't look like it was a common thing. These genetic markers could literally be the result of a single lucky expedition that managed to avoid getting crushed by waves or blown against rocks and scuttled.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. "Humans (including scientists) are not near as smart as they think they are."

Science is good, but one must realize its limitations, just like so many are so quick to point out the limitations of various religions, we should be equally quick to point out the limitations of science.

Geez. "Science" is not an institution or even a philosophy; it's a process. You can't make that kind of comparison. That's like saying "We have to acknowledge the limitations of reading". It's meaningless.

If a group of people is sufficiently motivated, there's not a whole lot keeping you from walking across a continent in a few months. The oceans make a much more formidable barrier to the movement of human populations, and if the vastness of the Pacific didn't stop the Polynesians, then some mountains and jungles probably wouldn't either.